Pages

Friday, 27 December 2013

I picked up the DayZ standalone alpha recently and I’ve now sunk a
fair bit of time into it. Here’s my initial thoughts -

Let’s start with the technical stuff. Performance wise, DayZ
stutters along. It’s certainly not unplayable, but it’s not
exactly very good either. I average around 40 or so frames per second
on mostly Medium settings. In populated areas it can drop to around
20-30. As I said, not unplayable, but with an i7 and a 780, I expect
better. In terms of servers, I’ve never had any problems finding or
connecting and I’ve only experienced a couple of disconnects. So
that’s been pretty stable. Bugs. Surprisingly, I’ve not
encountered that many, and those I have generally relate to zombies,
but I’ll get into that later.

Content and Features. This is the area where DayZ is currently
lacking. Aside from exploring the map and scavenging for supplies and
cosmetic items, there’s very little else to actually do. Well,
aside from killing other people, if that’s your thing. There are
hardly any zombies in the world (a good thing, which I’ll talk
about in a moment) so currently, it’s mostly just a case of
exploring the map and trying not to get shot. Now, the continual
search for supplies and the unpredictable nature of player
interaction is certainly a core part of the DayZ experience, but in
its current state it really is just a basic framework. More features
and mechanics need to be added in order to flesh out and add depth to
this framework.

Zombies. There are hardly any and it’s simply best to avoid the few
you may come across. They can walk through walls, closed doors, and
in one case a zombie started attacking me through a floor. You don’t
really want to waste ammo on them, but it’s too dangerous to
attempt melee attacks as even a single hit will cause you to bleed.
And getting hit/hitting back is more a matter of luck, as melee hit
detection is terrible. So if you see a zombie, just run and save
yourself the hassle. This game desperately needs more zombies, but
not until they can get them working right. Until then, it’s simply
better off without them.

Now, I’ve talked before about how it’s a risk to purchase a game
during development for several reasons and I don’t want to get into
all that again. Yes, it’s a risk, but it’s one you accept, and
there’s no point whining about it later if you regret it. I’d say
that in its current state, the asking price of DayZ is a little too
steep. However, this could change quite quickly depending on how
frequently new updates and content is rolled out. But does this mean
I wouldn’t recommend buying it now? Well, no, actually. Because
despite all of these problems, I’ve still had quite a bit of fun
with DayZ, even in its current state.

I think the question you have to ask yourself is this – will I get
my moneys worth out of the game as it is today, if it never gets any
better than this? If the answer is no, then steer clear. If yes, then
you may as well jump in now because hopefully, it will only improve
from here. Just think of it as a long term investment. So let’s
move onto some of the cool stuff currently in DayZ.

It’s a fast game to get into. The initial load to joining a server
is quick and without hassle. You can practically jump straight in,
which is great. Graphically, the game looks pretty decent, doing a
great job with its natural environments. The buildings and interiors
look good too, although interiors could do with a lot more variation.
The map is very large but you never feel too far from a potential
loot area. I really like being able to see my body in first person. I
keep saying I wish more games did this.

Despite reports I’ve seen, I’ve not personally had problems
finding food or water, although guns are another matter, but that’s
to be expected. I guess if you only loop around the larger coastal
areas you’d have less luck, because these are picked clean more
frequently. I’d recommend heading to smaller settlements inland and
checking buildings on the outskirts. I frequently find small hoards
of supplies completely untouched. I really like the inventory system
and character customisation. I think I’ve actually had the most fun
just dressing up my characters more than anything.

I like the basics that are already in place, such as needing tools to
open food tins, or tearing clothes into rags as makeshift bandages.
Or using a map, compass and Russian phrase book to help determine
your location. There’s so much potential to expand on this system
and create a very in depth survival experience. In terms of combat,
melee is totally unreliable, but guns work okay, although ammo is
very scarce. That said, simply carrying a gun around can be deterrent
enough. I actually chased off two bandits with an unloaded gun. By
the time they realized I hadn’t actually shot at them, I was
already legging it in the other direction. Ho ho!

Yes, people will try to kill you in DayZ just because. I guess mostly
because there’s sod all else to do right now. But if they can fix
the zombies and make them a numerous and serious threat, then perhaps
it will encourage more cooperation. Now, you certainly don’t want
to prevent or heavily penalise players for killing others, but there
needs to be some sort of balance, some incentive not to.

There needs
to be a good reason for players to team up and work together other
than simply for protection. And this needs to establish some form of
long term progression, some goal to aim for other than acquiring a
good stash of gear and supplies. Because that honestly doesn’t take
very long to do once you know where to look.

So yeah, I’ve had some fun with DayZ. I had to actually kill my
first character due to a bug. The second was shot about 5 minutes
after I arrived, and I’m currently on my third (although it wiped
all my gear the next time I logged in darn it!) I’m enjoying it for
what it offers right now and for that, I’d say it was just about
worth the cost. But it’s got a hell of a long way to go.

Monday, 23 December 2013

I knew little about Dark Souls going in. It was a somewhat hesitant purchase, even at the reduced price of £4.99. I really wasn’t sure if I was going to like it. But Dark Souls rapidly won me over, sucking me in and not letting go. It proved to be one of the most refreshing and unique games I’ve played in a long time. It’s not a game I’d recommend to everyone, but that’s one reason why it’s so great. It has a purity of design and focus. This is Dark Souls, like it or not. It doesn’t attempt to cater to everyone, nor should it.

If only more games took this approach. Too many get watered down these days in an attempt for mass appeal. A very polished, but generic and bland game will be forgotten. Dark Souls may be a little rough around the edges, but it’s a game you won’t forget any time soon. And so it claims the award for Best Game of 2013.

﻿

Most Disappointing Game of 2013 - Total War: Rome 2

Rome 2 is certainly not the worst game
I've played this year. It was, however, the most disappointing. After
several patches, the game has certainly improved since release, but
no amount of patches can fix some rather dodgy design choices. And
the AI remains as schizophrenic as ever.

That said, I still don’t think of
Rome 2 as a bad game as such. But it’s far from the definitive
Total War experience fans of the series were hoping for. As such, it
takes the award for Most Disappointing Game of 2013.

Wednesday, 18 December 2013

I think I’ve spoken before about my experience with the Assassin’s
Creed series. I rather enjoyed the first game despite its repetitive
mission structure. It felt fresh and unique, blending some large and
highly detailed environments with a fluid movement and combat system.
What I really liked about it though was the historical setting. AC 2,
whilst I probably prefer the setting and character of AC 1, was a
fantastic sequel, building upon all the good things of the original
game and adding even more quality features. My only real gripe would
have been that it was a little on the easy side.

Spin on to AC: Brotherhood, and this is where things start to go
wrong. I didn’t think Brotherhood was a bad game as such, but I
found it all rather mediocre. It tried to add new features to the AC
mix but none of them really worked. In the developer’s efforts to
keep adding more, more and even more side fluff for the player
to do, it seemed they lost sight of what the core game should be, and
that’s a criticism I’ll be raising again with AC 3. Brotherhood
was immediately followed with Revelations, but by this time I’d
largely lost interest in the series so I didn’t bother with it.
Spin on to now and AC 3 was on sale so I thought, why not give it a
shot? So let’s begin, shall we?

Assassin’s Creed 3 features a rather lengthy prologue and series of
tutorial missions which can last around 8-10 hours. The prologue puts
you in control of a man called Kenway (the main protagonist’s
father) beginning in London before relocating to the American
Colonies. Through a series of short, linear missions you’ll learn
the basics. This leads onto control of Connor himself, the real
protagonist, and his early years learning to hunt in the forest,
followed by his teen years which lead up to him pulling on the swanky
Assassin Order garb.

On one hand, I find it quite admirable that the developers wanted the
player to take their time to immerse themselves in the setting, story
and characters. However, the execution to this approach is somewhat
flawed, as the game initially feels disjointed, the action sometimes
leaping forward several months or even years. As a result, the
missions feel disconnected from one to the next, and to make matters
worse, many are cut scene heavy, regularly wrestling control away
from the player. Plus, because they are still technically ‘tutorial’
missions, they often force the player onto a specific path, or set of
actions. And then there’s all the ‘memory boundaries’ limiting
your freedom of movement and approach.

This can result in the game growing rather frustrating, not to
mention irritating, and I can understand why people would start to
lose interest. However, stick with AC 3 and the game does begin to
open up as the sandbox slowly comes alive. Set during the time of the
American Revolution, you’ll visit two cities, Boston and New York,
both quite stunningly detailed. It’s clear a great deal of effort
has gone into recreating these cities in a way that is historically
authentic, yet also complements the gameplay.

These cities really do
feel alive, with lots of nice little touches and animations on the
bustling streets. In addition to these locations, you also have the
large Frontier environment which features a couple of smaller
settlements and some forts, but is mostly comprised of wilderness to
explore and hunt. But we also have the Homestead, which I’ll talk
more about later.

So as I said, it certainly takes its time, but AC 3 finally begins to
let you in, to trust you to take control and get out there into the
world. I get that they wanted to direct us through this early
content, but as hand holding goes, this is way overkill, and sadly
it’s a problem that crops up again frequently throughout the game.

Once you do get to take full control though you’ll have plenty to
keep you busy. In addition to the core missions you have dozens of
side activities. The best of these are the Naval Missions, which I’ll
touch more upon later, but you also have a variety of other side
missions such as courier and assassination jobs, as well as a series
of challenges to complete relating to hunting, fighting and
exploration. And of course, collectibles! Lots and lots of
collectibles!

But that’s not all. You also have the Homestead to manage and
missions to complete which allow you to build a thriving community.
You can then purchase raw materials to craft new items to trade for
profit. In itself, the Homestead is like a mini-game, and quite
satisfying to see build up over the course of the story, although it
has to be said that the crafting/trading element is rather pointless
(not to mention having a horrible menu system) and overall, I didn’t
feel as connected to the Homestead as say, the town in AC 2. And this
is again due in part to the leaps in time the game makes at regular
intervals.

So certainly there’s no shortage of content, but is it quality
content? Well, yes and no. Mostly no, sadly. Although numerous, the
side content is largely basic, shallow and repetitive, and this is
where I bring up the point I made earlier, about the developer trying
to cram so much fluff in that they lose sight of the core game. And
this game is called Assassin’s Creed 3. Assassin. Except
there’s very little assassinating going on.

The core missions guide you (quite literally by the hand at times)
through some key moments of the American Revolution, putting you face
to face with some famous historical figures. And whilst these moments
may be interesting to experience from the historical point of view,
gameplay wise it’s another matter entirely. Some, honestly, are
just plain boring to play.

As I saw it, the AC games were about a story taking place within a
particular historical setting. In AC 3, however, the setting and the
story are essentially one and the same. The Revolution isn’t simply
the backdrop to Connor’s story – it’s the focus. And whilst
that’s fine to do, it leaves Connor and his personal quest feeling
rather irrelevant, as the game leaps from one key event to the next
and Connor is simply along for the ride. And yeah, very few of these
missions involve, you know, assassinating someone.

I mean, it’s fun and all throwing tea into Boston Harbour, but why
the hell does an entire mission revolve around it? Because it pisses
off a guy Connor wanted to kill? No, this mission exists, like so
many other core missions, to put Connor at the heart of a key event
in the revolution, even if it doesn’t really make sense for him to
be involved, or much more importantly - is actually interesting to
play. This can be incredibly frustrating, especially when, as in the
lengthy opening, missions are punctuated with frequent cut scenes and
insultingly stupid hand holding. Press X to Throw Tea.

To use the tea mission as an example, there’s no reason this event
couldn’t have featured in the game, but why not use it as a
backdrop? Why not send Connor to assassinate his target, using the
tea dumping as a distraction? You can keep the historical backdrop
without losing focus on what this game’s primary missions should
really revolve around – assassinating people. I know, I
know, crazy idea right?

I’m all for mission variety, but many core missions in AC 3 are so
simplistic and easy, and there’s simply not enough assassinations,
as ridiculous as that sounds. Many just feel like a chore to slog
through, and they aren’t even very long if you cut out all the
cinematic interruptions. And even worse, many of them limit player
freedom and creativity so people don’t accidentally ‘break’ the
story.

One example that bothered me was hunting down a man Connor
intended to kill. After a lengthy chase through the streets, I closed
on my target and struck...only to ‘fail’ the mission because I
wasn’t supposed to kill him yet within the story. Oh. This pissed
me off so much I had to quit the game for a bit.

So yeah, the core missions of AC 3, although certainly interesting
from the historical perspective, just aren’t very interesting from
a gameplay standpoint at all. Some do fair better than others, but
overall, it’s rather disappointing stuff.

Speaking of gameplay, AC 3 has streamlined the free running aspect
into pretty much just holding down right trigger and pointing in the
general direction you want to go. I don’t actually mind this too
much, as a more complex system would result in less fluid movement,
and that movement through the environments is what makes AC 3 so fast
and enjoyable, especially the new natural environments. More
complexity would result in more frustration, and this is one time
when I’d agree that making it more simple is for the best.

But then we have the combat. Oh. Okay, so I can’t deny that the
combat is also fast, fluid and great fun to watch. Watch, yes,
because it’s largely an automated affair. The animations are top
notch, but you have very little control over anything. They’ve
actually make it feel even easier than I remember Brotherhood being.
Forget stealth or subtlety, it’s just not worth your time, and the
game doesn’t exactly lend itself to that play style anyway
(although to be fair, none of the AC games handled stealth well) Need
to capture a fort full of soldiers? Just walk in the front door,
you’ll be fine!

A group of enemies should be threatening, but in AC 3, groups are
easy to chain kill with just a few taps of the X button. Counter an
initial strike, and you can chain your way through an entire squad or
two (B then X). It looks pretty, but that’s about it. They do try
to mix it up with a couple of different enemy types who require
slightly different tactics (B then A!), but that’s about as complex
as it gets.

Compared to a game like say, Arkham City, which although
also a little easy in terms of combat, at least really mixed in a
variety of enemy types that required the player to be creative with
gadgets and tactics. I guess there will always be a tricky balance
between ‘cinematic’ combat, and more complex, challenging combat,
but AC 3 veers way too far in the ‘cinematic’ direction.

The last major criticism of the game is unfortunately related to
technical aspects. AC 3 suffers from quite a few bugs and glitches.
These can range from the amusing – npcs popping in and out of
existence around you, and ‘dead’ men yelling at you from the
ground to give two examples – to the annoying, such as certain
events not triggering in missions, forcing you to reload the last
checkpoint as you’re left unable to progress.

The most infuriating
bugs, however, are the ones that cause some of the side missions to
fail to appear or properly complete, which means if you’re aiming
for 100% synchronisation, think again. (In particular I found the
Delivery Requests very glitchy, and I also had some problems with the
liberation missions too, but fortunately I got them all to trigger)

Okay, now for something more positive – the Naval Missions. A
number of side quests involve taking to the seas, controlling your
ship and blowing shit up. They’re a little short and basic, but a
hell of a lot of fun and thoroughly entertaining. An entire game
focused around these elements, with more depth, boarding actions,
exploring the sea, engaging in battles, going to mysterious islands
and...hold on, maybe I will give AC 4 a look after all!

So what else haven’t I touched upon? Well, the assassin recruits
return which is a rather pointless feature, but it’s, you know,
there, I guess. Oh and you also have the Desmond sections, in
which you get to stretch your legs in the present for a bit, but these
are mostly short, silly interludes and largely forgettable. Kenway is
a magnificent bastard and actually far more interesting than Connor,
funnily enough.

Although animations are generally great, facial
animations can be a little static and creepy. Switching out weapons
and gear can also be a bit cumbersome. Oh, and the final run of
missions are so incredibly lame and may as well have just been a
series of cinematics for all the player control they offer. In fact,
the entire ending feels totally rushed and just left me in a ‘what
the f**k, that’s it?’ state, followed by what may be the longest
unskippable credits sequence in history. Seriously, don’t do that.

Overall, Assassin’s Creed 3 was a frustrating, irritating, tedious,
yet also sporadically quite enjoyable, content packed experience.
It’s just a shame that more of that content isn’t more focused or
in depth, and that the experience is spoiled by some irritating bugs
and glitches, not to mention the extremely lacklustre core missions
and excessive hand holding. But there is good stuff in here,
as long as you’re willing to overlook the rough patches and slog
your way through the more dull stuff. To end on a slightly more
positive note, AC 3 at least rekindled my interest in the franchise,
so that’s better than nothing.

Tuesday, 10 December 2013

I think in my last writing update I mentioned that I wanted to get
one more project done before the end of the year, but I wasn’t
quite sure what it would be. I had three potential projects lined up,
but I actually ended up not doing any of them. Instead, I started
work on TSOTS.

TSOTS is the sequel to one of my other books. I’d spent some time
refining its outline and felt the time was right to hammer out a
first draft. I knew it was unlikely I’d be able to get it completed
before the end of the year, but I knew I could have a good crack at
it.

So far, I have a little over 20k words written which comprises the
first ten chapters. I’ve spent some time editing and revising those
so it’s not too rough. I was hoping to get another ten done by
about mid-December, and that still might be feasible, although a cold
I picked up recently has somewhat stalled my progress.

So my new goal is to get about 50k words done by the end of the year.
And if I can keep up that momentum I should have the first draft
completed by the end of January.

Tuesday, 3 December 2013

I’m not sure where to start. How can I talk about The Stanley Parable without spoiling the experience? And that’s really what it
is - an interactive experience. It takes the common narrative and design frameworks we’ve become so accustomed to in
our wonderful video games, de-constructs them, pokes them full of
holes, turns them upside down and inside out and then creates
something entirely unique.

Is it a game? Does it matter? It rather defies description. It’s
not a puzzle game as such, but there are plenty of hidden secrets to
uncover. It’s not an adventure game, but you do go on an adventure
of sorts. There’s no real ending, and no real challenge. It’s
first person and you walk about a bit, occasionally pressing (or
not!) a button. In terms of gameplay it’s basic to the point of
non-existent. In terms of replay value you’ll have seen mostly
everything within a few hours, so at the current price of 7.99, it’s
not exactly great value in that regard.

And yet, I can’t deny that The Stanley Parable was one of the most
amusing, entertaining and clever ‘games’
I’ve played in a long while. So how can I score this ‘game’?
Should I? And should it relate only to the quality of the content? Or should I take the price and the quantity of content into consideration too?

But that said, much of the content and the meaning behind it
will be lost on those who are unfamiliar with common video game
design tropes, so not everyone will ‘get’ The Stanley Parable.
I’m sure many will simply be baffled by it and not see what the
fuss is all about. That’s not to say that if you don’t like it, it’s
because you don’t ‘get’ it. Perhaps you feel the presentation
of this deconstruction simply doesn’t work.

Honestly though, I’m not sure I can score this, uh, ‘game’
accurately. To do so almost seems like it would miss the point of the
experience too. So I’ll simply say I think you should play it. Oh, and make sure
you play the demo too.